IMMIGRATION thread

[Gilrandir]

Second, atheists can believe and find strength in front of deadly events in some others earthly belief, as the number of communists in front of Nazi firing squads proved it: Manouchian Michel, in his last letter to his wife: I will die with 23 comrades soon, with the courage and serenity of a man with a good conscience, as I hurt no one, and if I did, I did it without hate. Today, it is a sunny day. Watching the sun and this nature I loved so much, I will say good bye to life…

The husband of my grandmother's sister was at war. It was astonishing for him how many would be atheists (including him) in the Red army prayed before an offensive. So

There are very few people, when being bombed, or shot at, or hanging off a cliff, who won't say "Oh God, please let me live through this."

Moreover, for the Soviet pople at that time there was an alternative God - Stalin. They believed in Communism that was like a paradise and often died shouting "For the Motherland! For Stalin" So they were believers of a kind.

But, as it is fashion now for religious people to be offended, I decided I would be too.

Same old story. One doesn't have to be religious to be offended at some things which he deems above criticism or even discussion (like mother for blacks).

Why? Quite easy...
Religious people makes claim as "atheist can't have moral", or "can't face death bravely" and all others kind of silly things. Religious people put a judgement on none-religious and it looks like it is acceptable.

Again too general a claim. You can't make conclusions about ALL religious people, neither can you speak for ALL atheists. For example, many Soviet atheists were good at killing priests and destroying buildings of great architectural and historic value (aka churches). Do you side with them?

[Husar]

You claimed that he is prone to do such things once in a while. If he doesn't stop doing this it means that either she doesn't mind or she is a lousy boss. Either conclusion doesn't reflect a great credit upon Frau Kanzlerin.

Why if noone usually goes along with those ideas?

[Gilrandir]

Why if noone usually goes along with those ideas?

If a minister comes up with one crazy idea after another AND NO ONE GIVES A , it means that he is a buffoon but his boss doesn't mind. A buffoon's boss is the circus director, not the Prime Minister.

[Fragony]

Do all "squareheads" look alike to you?

Well she isn't one, she was born in Hamburg, and moved to the DDR later, where she became a stasi, codename 'Erica'

[Husar]

If a minister comes up with one crazy idea after another AND NO ONE GIVES A , it means that he is a buffoon but his boss doesn't mind. A buffoon's boss is the circus director, not the Prime Minister.

"he has strange ideas once in a while" <> "he has one crazy idea after another"

[rory_20_uk]

A plan to help integrate people into UK society as all of a sudden it has been noticed that 22% of all Muslim women in the UK speak no to little English Link; those who marry and fail to improve their english after 2 1/2 years well... something might happen.

Frankly the whole thing seems too little and way to late to me. Does anyone think that £22 million is really enough to resolve this problem, or is it merely the usual "paying for headlines" to target key demographics who they think are more likely to vote based on this

[Gilrandir]

"he has strange ideas once in a while" <> "he has one crazy idea after another"

Unfortunately, you didn't specify how often is "once in a while". Yet, even if it turns out more seldom than average, it is still not prudent for a boss to have an employee who may suddenly go off his chump (and at a most unsuitable moment too).

[Snowhobbit]

Uhm... Is deporting people for not speaking English really a good choice? How about if UK starts with deporting terrorists and terror cells? I wonder if UK will get into more trouble with the ECHR?
Also, you already have to pass an English test before being allowed to move to the UK as a spouse. So how is this even an issue?

[Fragony]

22% isn't that bad really, even pretty good

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It equates to most of a generation, it's pretty bad.

The big thing is they've changed the law so that you have to prove you know English before you can come join your spouse now.

This bit on the people already living here is just the tail end of the change.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it hard to believe that the inhabitants of newly conquered lands received the same treatment as those of the core Roman provinces, still less that slaves of all races were treated equally (bad). Generally, earlier civilizations were xenophobic (even the enlightened Greeks scornfully called the ousiders Barbarians). Thus, the idea of the golden epoch of racial equality seems highly doubtful to me.

The Romans were not without prejudice, but it was not racial prejudice as we understand it.

It's important to understand that, for people in ages past, physical appearance was not understood as it is now.

[Pannonian]

It equates to most of a generation, it's pretty bad.

The big thing is they've changed the law so that you have to prove you know English before you can come join your spouse now.

This bit on the people already living here is just the tail end of the change.

We should recognise an Islamist country somewhere which will be the default state that British Islamists will be assigned to when they're stripped of UK citizenship. Sort of like a modern version of transportation.

[Fragony]

We should recognise an Islamist country somewhere which will be the default state that British Islamists will be assigned to when they're stripped of UK citizenship. Sort of like a modern version of transportation.

Strip every chance on getting welfare if someone choses to be unfit for work. Much better, it's what they came/come for. They'll leave/stay away if they can't get it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We should recognise an Islamist country somewhere which will be the default state that British Islamists will be assigned to when they're stripped of UK citizenship. Sort of like a modern version of transportation.

No, we really shouldn't - your last sentence should tell you that.

We cannot revert to 19th Century policies because we no longer have a 19th century country, or military.

It's like saying we should re-annex Hong Kong.

[Husar]

Unfortunately, you didn't specify how often is "once in a while".

Nice try but that doesn't excuse that you thought it means "one after another"...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/w...nce-in-a-while

Yet, even if it turns out more seldom than average, it is still not prudent for a boss to have an employee who may suddenly go off his chump (and at a most unsuitable moment too).

Tell that to the banks, none of whose bosses were punished in any way for the last crisis they caused, or for laundering terrorist money or anything like that. Yet here we are arguing over semantics because a politician uttered a silly tax idea...

[Montmorency]

Non-detached appositions

§ 92. Non-detached appositions form one sense group with their headword and very often enter into such close relation with it that the two words form one whole. This is especially true in the case of titles, military ranks, professions, kinship terms, geographical denotations, etc., used as apposition.

Sir Peter, Mr Brown, Doctor Watson, Colonel Davidson, Uncle Podger, Mount Everest, the River Thames.

This is what you seem to base your understanding on for the context of the disagreement here, but as it turns out contemporary English-language treatments take apposition rather differently (in terminology and substance) from Soviet general grammar texts.

the gradient between apposition and premodification
is a complex gradient: while the extremes of this gradient are
easy to identify, intermediate cases have "fluid boundaries" (Bell
1988:330). At the modification end of the gradient are "institutionalized"
titles (Quirk et al. 1985:1319), expressions such as President or Professor
which precede a proper noun. Titles are typical premodifiers because they
are structurally dependent on a head: they cannot stand alone (example
136c) or follow the head noun that they modify (example i36d).

(136a) The board of regents of Paris Junior College has named Dr. Clarence Charles Clark of Hays, Kan. as the school's new president. (Brown A02 1530-50)
(136b) ...has named Charles Clark...
(136c) *... has named Dr
(i36d) #...has named Charles Clark, Dr

As the examples in this section illustrate, the main difference between
apposition and premodification is the extent to which the first unit of the
construction is structurally dependent on the second unit. If the units are
in apposition, they will be structurally independent; if one unit modifies the
other, only the head (and not the modifier) can stand alone and reversal of
the units is not possible.

Ambiguities between apposition and coordination result because it is
sometimes difficult to distinguish between apposition and asyndetic
coordination. In examples 126 and 127, the juxtaposed constructions are
syntactically quite similar because each satisfies criteria 1—3:

(126a) But the head of department is a little bit idiosyncratic, an awfully nice chap. (LLC s.1.6 218-21)
(126b) But the head of department is an awfully nice chap.
(126c) But the head of department is a little bit idiosyncratic.
(i26d) But the head of department is an awfully nice chap, a little bit idiosyncratic.

(127a) The address was in the Holborn district; it sounded shabby, dismal. (SEU w.16.1.19-1)
(127b) ...it sounded dismal.
(127c) ...it sounded shabby.
(i27d) ...it sounded dismal, shabby.

Semantically, however, the units are quite different. In example 127, shabby
and dismal are in apposition because they are synonymous, a semantic
relationship existing in other kinds of appositions (3.1.2.1). In example 126,
on the other hand, an awfully nice chap and a little bit idiosyncratic are not
synonymous. Consequently, in this construction, we have asyndetic
coordination rather than apposition.

[Viking]

Germany is edging closer to a Pogrom [...]

I don't imagine that a "progrom" style riot is possible without a state that is either a) weak (at least locally), or b) indifferent..

Ethnic tensions may rise, though; certainly (including more violence).

[Pannonian]

No, we really shouldn't - your last sentence should tell you that.

We cannot revert to 19th Century policies because we no longer have a 19th century country, or military.

It's like saying we should re-annex Hong Kong.

As it is, these traitors from within are taking advantage of liberal policies to argue their case whilst denying their practice from their own perspective. Asymmetric debate occurs when both sides argue using a premise, but only one side takes it seriously. If these people deny a common state to the point of using or supporting the use of force against it and its citizens, we're better off without them, and we should facilitate their exit from the country which they hate so much. From a liberal perspective that supports democracy and self-determination, it's the most lenient way of giving both sides what they want: they can have their Islamist state, while we can have the rule of the people.

[Gilrandir]

We cannot revert to 19th Century policies because we no longer have a 19th century country.

It's like saying we should re-annex Hong Kong.

Let me introduce to you one man. His name's Putin. Vladimir Putin. He may tell you a lot on the issue.

[Gilrandir]

This is what you seem to base your understanding on for the context of the disagreement here, but as it turns out contemporary English-language treatments take apposition rather differently (in terminology and substance) from Soviet general grammar texts.

The sources cited deal with RELATIONS between certain parts of the sentence (admitting apposition as one of them). By the way, an attempt to differentiate between apposition and premodification as relations is very inadequate. Premodification means any type of relations in which the dependent element comes before the head-word. So it is the criterion of FORM. Apposition (as a relation) and coordination as defined in the sources you cite deal with MEANING.

But whatever the drawbacks of those definitions might be, we here spoke not of RELATIONS, but of GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION or even a single part of the sentence (similar to attribute) the definition of which you referred to in the wikipedia article and which is described in the sources I cited.

[Montmorency]

Apposition (as a relation) and coordination as defined in the sources you cite deal with MEANING.

But whatever the drawbacks of those definitions might be, we here spoke not of RELATIONS, but of GRAMMATUCAL CONSTRUCTION the definition of which you referred to in the wikipedia article and which is described in the sources I cited.

So you still don't see how you are contradicting yourself and the cited materials?

Modification is not a subset of apposition, nor are they synonymous.

[Gilrandir]

Nice try but that doesn't excuse that you thought it means "one after another"...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/w...nce-in-a-while

OK. Let me put it this way: one after another at some (often quite longish) intervals.

Tell that to the banks, none of whose bosses were punished in any way for the last crisis they caused, or for laundering terrorist money or anything like that. Yet here we are arguing over semantics because a politician uttered a silly tax idea...

Banks are private enterprises and their misdemeanors and felonies are to be punished according to the criminal law.

The politician in question committed nothing of the kind, he just blurted out some crackpot idea of his, so his punishnemt (if any) should be political, and it is to be executed by his political/party boss.

[CrossLOPER]

Let me introduce to you one man. His name's Putin. Vladimir Putin. He may tell you a lot on the issue.

Did he reach Kiev yet?

[CrossLOPER]

How do you publicly shame someone for Xing in an X culture? Does the culture suffer from a lack of self-confidence? Are you referring to a subculture within a larger culture?

Don't think about it too hard; he certainly didn't.

I am not good at English

You've only been using it for at least 15 years, so I don't know how you can be any good. He's not using "big words" to scare you off.

[Beskar]

Did he reach Kiev yet?

He wasn't too fond of the Chicken Kiev, so he is getting ready to baste the Turkey.

[Fragony]

It's ok to be ok in English, I can manage. I make mistakes, so what.

[Husar]

Banks are private enterprises and their misdemeanors and felonies are to be punished according to the criminal law.

The politician in question committed nothing of the kind, he just blurted out some crackpot idea of his, so his punishnemt (if any) should be political, and it is to be executed by his political/party boss.

Well, here is Merkel's approval rating and that of Horst Seehofer from the Bavarian CSU (they are like the bavarian part of the CDU although technically a different party, don't ask me about specifics)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTHVr1PWUAAhGz4.jpg

[Gilrandir]

Well, here is Merkel's approval rating and that of Horst Seehofer from the Bavarian CSU (they are like the bavarian part of the CDU although technically a different party, don't ask me about specifics)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTHVr1PWUAAhGz4.jpg

How does it bear on Merkel-and-her-minister discourse?

[Gilrandir]

Did he reach Kiev yet?

If you were attentive, you could have noticed that my remark referred to a country leader using XIXth century politics and annexing parts of other countries. Or does the fact of Putin not having reached something excuse/cancel everything else he has done (and is still doing)?

[Husar]

How does it bear on Merkel-and-her-minister discourse?

Why does anything matter?